Revelation | A Christian Site About Religion, God, Jesus, & the Bible Articles and Answers about God, the Bible, Jesus, Religion, & Theology

Hello Everyone! I recently wrote an article on the “alleged missing link” find dubbed the Ida fossil. The response I have gotten from the article has almost been more fun than actually writing the article itself.

I have received a few comments, one question, and have actually seen my article being linked to by various “rational” or “skeptic” websites (and even some Christian sites). So considering all that has happened, I wanted to write this article to address a few things:

1. I want to clarify my views on the topic and science in general.
2. I want to answer the question I had pertaining to my criticism towards dating methods used by science.

Those 2 things I want to accomplish in this article. First let me clear up a few things, then I will get to the question, so please bear with me here.

Brief Clarifications About My Religious & Scientific Views

Contrary to what some may think, I actually love science, and believe in true science totally. If McDonald’s sold science, I would get it “supersized” every single time. In fact, if science were a woman, my wife would have some serious competition (I am joking of course, but I think you get the picture that I appreciate science very much).

I am not some crazy idiot that lives in the sticks, who has no grasp on the way things work in the world. I tend to have a very logical, and even scientific approach to all things in my life, including religion.

For example, if I see a strike of lightning, I don’t say, “Well gee golly whiz sweetie, the “Lawrd” musta did that, we must have done something to offend the gods. Shucks.” I realize the scientific processes behind a bolt of lightning. However, I also do believe deeply in God, and also the Bible.

If I had to compare my way of thinking to a person in history, I would compare it to Isaac Newton. I view the whole world as something that works in a logical, orderly way, according to the physical laws established by God. I believe science is a tool that can help us understand the way these things work. I also believe the universe was created by God, and that God exists, and the Bible is God’s revelation to mankind.

So I hope that everyone does at least realize those points. I love science. I love logic. I love critical thinking. I just do it in the context of a believer (like Newton), as opposed to the context of disbelief (like atheists). Again, I haven’t always been a believer, and even was an agnostic and even atheist for a period in my life. However, after a long examination and hearing all sides of the argument, I think “God” wins by a landslide.

In my mind, science and God fit together perfectly. True science can and will never contradict the bible. The only time an alleged discrepancy occurs between science and the bible is when someone suggest evidence (usually based on faulty assumptions) is a fact, when in fact it isn’t a fact at all (but merely one interpretation of evidence which can be wrong).

Also, I certainly make no claims to be a scientist. I am not by a long shot. I enjoy science, read science articles, and so forth, but I am certainly not a scientist, nor do I ever claim to be (unlike most atheists and skeptics who have this illusion like they are scientists or something).

Are Scientific Dating Methods Accurate? (Carbon Dating, Sediments, etc.)

Here is the question I received about dating methods I briefly criticized in the article:

Sorry for the long quote, but you say:

“Most dating methods are only accurate for a few thousand years, and even then they can be contradictory. They have no idea how old something is unless they themselves were actually there. Dating methods are flawed, and only used under the assumption that something in the universe hasn’t happened within that time which could affect the dating.”

Now, there are many dating methods for fossils. Carbon dating (which you seem to have dismissed) and deposition rates of sediments to name but two. Both of these are based on rigorous scientific method. Would you explain how your dating of events in the Bible are verified as obviously, you have no access to the “time machine” you require scientists to have?

-Bruce

First of all, thanks for your question Bruce. I will try to address the main points of why I said that, and talk very briefly about dating methods in general (and the assumptions that lie within them). And yes, I am aware that those are not the only 2 dating methods used.

In fact, there are tons of dating methods for different things. You can try to date trees by looking at rings. You can try to date the universe by measuring distant star’s light and estimating the time it takes to reach Earth. You can look at crystals, and so forth. So yes, there are lots of them. But unfortunately, they are all built upon assumptions (which I will address in more detail below). And many contradict each other.

So are dating methods just so beautiful, rigorously tested, accurate, and as sexy as we would like to believe? In short no. Sometimes yes, they can be useful in a limited context. But mostly no, and especially not reaching back millions of years. Those dating methods can sometimes provide an approximate date for things such as fossils, archaeological materials, etc. within a limited range of time. But by no means is it perfect, and it’s known (and observed) to be very flawed and at times inaccurate. So any assumptions based on a period of time that reach back before man’s time on Earth is just ridiculous, and nothing more than a fairy tell at worst, and a guess at best.

Before I talk about dating methods, let me just provide a few examples of how foolish it is to make assumptions in a few real-life examples.

The Absurdity of Assumptions In Dating Methods

Imagine your vehicle gets 30 miles to the gallon in gas mileage. You fill it up, and start on a trip. You calculate the size of your tank, the miles you plan to drive, and you estimate that the gas should last for your entire trip.

Then suddenly, 3/4 of the way on your trip, you run out of gas. You are shocked as you estimated that you should be able to drive the entire trip without running out. What went wrong? You assumed that the gas would constantly get 30 miles per gallon. Perhaps your car needs a tuneup. Perhaps you have a small gas leak. Perhaps the fuel was low quality fuel that you used. There are tons of factors that could have altered your gas mileage, and in fact, you only assumed that your gas mileage was correct and would remain constant.

Or for another example, imagine you buy a new swimming pool. You take a water  hose out, turn on the faucet, and start to fill up the pool. You can measure the volume of water that comes out of the hose and make an assumption of how long it will take to fill the pool.

However, this assumption is once again wrong, and will likely not be 100% accurate. What if it comes a big rain? The pool will fill much faster. What if the water pressure fluctuates during the filling of the pool? What if humidity and evaporation come into play? The point is, these are all assumptions. They only way they are ever accurate, is if the rate remains the same, and no other outside forces influence it.

Or did you by any chance invest in Bernie Madoff’s pyramid scheme? You could look at the return rate and make an assumption of how much money you could have made. He even had lots of evidence to back up earning potential, past earnings, etc. and everything.

But if you had invested a lot of money with Madoff, you could have been burned. Or if you made an assumption based on a stock’s earning, you could be burned. Assumptions and evidence are arbitrary. Anyone who has lived can quickly realize that.

So do you really expect me to believe dating methods  on the age of fossils or the Earth which:

1. Are based ENTIRELY on assumptions, which could be very inaccurate or completely wrong.
2. Are based upon a period of time before written or documented history, which can never be proven or dis-proven because it will always be “a guess.” The only way to know for sure is to invent a time machine (not going to happen folks).
3. Are observed, witnessed, and documented BY SCIENTISTS to be  inaccurate  in some datings by as much as hundreds, thousands, and even millions of years?

I don’t think so! Not by a long shot. We have no idea what earlier conditions may have been like.  We have no idea what other factors could have altered the Carbon-14 (or any other methods) dates. We have no idea what geological conditions may have been like even 16,000 years ago. Anyone who puts 100% trust in that, is certainly not thinking as a rational or reasonable person.

There are tons of factors that are OBSERVED by science to dramatically affect the accuracy of any of those measurements. In fact, any honest scientists (regardless of religion) will freely admit that all dating methods are flawed. They will also freely admit that there are documented cases where any given dating method has been proven wrong due to unforeseen effects, or natural phenomena by a significant amount of time.

Now I am not suggesting that all dating methods are useless and should be tossed out the window. They can help to give a general range of a date for certain circumstances (generally within a few thousand years). However, when we start using them to try and recover a date for the Earth’s age, it is basically useless. It is an assumption, a guess, and nothing more. Dating may provide a number, but that number is nothing. It is no different than going up to a bum on the street and asking him how old the Earth is. Either one could be right!

There are tons of evidences out there for a young Earth as well. So the evidence for the age of the Earth is contradictory in nature (as is most evidence). All the time, scientists will date 1 object using different methods, and each method will provide a different date range. Sometimes they can date different parts of the same object with the same dating methods, and surprise, it can give different dates. So again, I can’t believe anyone actually puts trust in anything older than a few thousand years, if that. Before that time, we know nothing of the Earth or human history.

The Fallacy of “Evidence=Truth” in Fossils and Science

It is an observable fact that evidence does not equal truth. Furthermore, overwhelming evidence does not equal truth. Even more shocking: We see this fact all the time within our own life. So why is this concept so hard to grasp?

Some people think because there is purported “evidence” of fossils, we must have evolved. People think because there is purported “evidence” of dating methods, it must surely be that age.

But this fallacy is proven wrong every day. My wife may walk in and see a McDonald’s bag  in the trash, and a receipt attached to the bag. Perhaps the smell of McDonald’s even lingers from the bag. She may assume that I purchased McDonald’s food and ate it. There is certainly ample evidence.

But what if I was merely outside and seen a bag someone left in my apartment complex parking lot, and brought it in and threw it away to be a good samaritan. Then her assumption based on evidence in fact is incorrect. Is there some evidence that I went to McDonald’s? Sure. Is it a fact (or true) that I went to McDonald’s? Of course not! Evidence is evidence. By itself, evidence means nothing. It is only the meaning or assumptions we attach to that evidence that mean anything, and that can be both correct or incorrect–regardless of the amount or interpretation of the evidence. Evidence by itself is ambiguous. You can pick a side and sway it any way you want. This happens every day in a court room.

Every day there is a man or woman in court, on trial for murder or some other crime. Both sides (the defense and prosecuting attorney) will collect evidence. One will collect evidence which shows the person is guilty. One will collect evidence to show they are innocent. Which is right? Only the man or woman on trial knows for sure. Why, because evidence doesn’t provide answers. Evidence just “is.”

But every single day, a person is sent to prison based on evidence, when in fact they didn’t commit the crime. Every day, a person is set free after the trial based on lack of evidence, even though they in fact did the crime (cough cough OJ Simpson, cough–just kidding).

This is basic stuff here. A 9 year old child can understand those basic concepts. I have no idea why older educated men and women have trouble with them. Yet if you ask any  atheist why they don’t believe in God, what is the first thing they will usually blurt out of their mouths? “There is no evidence for that”. Or, “The evidence shows we used to be monkeys.” Does anyone else see the ridiculousness in all of this?

I mean really, if people don’t WANT to believe in God, don’t. But don’t use a crap excuse like evidence. Just say you don’t want to believe and you don’t like religion. Basing your excuse on evidence is dishonest, simply because there is evidence for God. There are logical argument for the existence of God. It is reasonable to assume God exists.

Where is My Evidence for the Bible Dates? Did I Use a Time Machine?

You asked in your question to explain my dating events for the bible, and where I got my time machine. That is funny and all, but seriously, am I the one releasing a press release to CNN, pretending like it is science to sell my books, DVD, and documentary propaganda?

Didn’t think so! I make it very clear that my site is about a religion, not a scientific fact or theory. This whole blog and all of my articles are written from a conservative and religious perspective, and I certainly don’t cover that up and label it as science class or a huge scientific discovery.

My website is clearly a religious belief blog. I don’t cover that fact up. It is a belief system. So let me explain the difference so that you can understand better:

• Atheism is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Islam is a religion, Buddhism is a religion.
• In my religion, there is a belief that God created the world. I believe this to be true, not only because of supporting evidence, but also because of logic, reason, and some faith.
• In the atheist religion, there is a belief that there is no god, and evolution is their creation story. According to their story, they used to be slime, then fish, then animals and birds, and eventually monkeys.
• The thing we both have in common is that neither can be “proved.” The best we can get is to collect evidence, but just like a trial, where does evidence get us? Nowhere! Evidence doesn’t prove or disprove anything, and everyone who is honest knows it.

The great thing about life is that you are free to choose your religion and beliefs. But I don’t try to package my religion as if it were scientific facts, submit press releases, and make documentaries showing how it is a fact. I instead present my beliefs, and make abundantly clear it is beliefs based on evidence, faith, reason, logic, etc. That is why this blog is a religion blog. I don’t call it a science textbook and give it to kids and dress my religion up in a science outfit.

If we want to truly give people an education, we should all sides of the interpretation of the evidence, so we can come to our own conclusions. We shouldn’t just hear one side, because that isn’t very objectionable is it? What did that press release do? Did it give other’s thoughts on it? Of course not! Just another biased non-sense garbage article wrapped in science and placed with a pretty evidence bow on top.

However, the whole “Ida” fossil is presented in a way that makes it sound as if it is a fact that humans evolved, and I am sure they will include that eventually with their fairy-tale religion creation story in textbooks to brainwash kids that this is “facts” when it is nothing more than “opinions based on 1 interpretation of evidence”.

They place that junk in textbooks showing how we evolved, and present that as fact. They mix true observable science with interpretations of evidence based on assumptions. That may be fine for some things in life, but when it comes to something complex that we can never know, observe, or test (such as the origins of life), they should not label that as science. That is a religion at best, fairy tale at worst.

Also, I really don’t see why people are so aggressive about trying to prove there isn’t’ a God. I would have never imagined that so many people are so excited to say they are monkey’s relatives. I never thought so many people would be so happy to know that life is completely meaningless and pointless. Yet they put so much effort into that, and it kind of amazes me.

 How Old Do I Presume the World or Universe Is?

I don’t know, and I don’t care. Unlike egotistical scientists, I realize that we will never know. I don’t proceed to lay a date on creation. Even in my religious beliefs, the bible doesn’t date the Earth or give an age for the universe. No one knows how old it is, nor will they ever. I know that must be terrible for scientists to grapple with, but it is true.

Invent a time machine, go back in time, and you may find the answer. Other than that, it is all a deck of cards based on shaky evidence and even shakier assumptions.

People believe man can create a mini-universe with a Hadron Collider, but they don’t think God can. People think man can create a new species in its final form without having to evolve, but they don’t think man can.

Anything man can do, God can do better. God can do anything better than man!

Sponsored Links

Posted under evolution, science

Yesterday most news stations were reporting on a so called “missing link” which has been presented by a group of science researchers. This is something that evolutionists have longed searched for throughout the years (albeit unsuccessfully). Here is one of the things the articles said:

It has, among other things, opposable thumbs, similar to humans’ and unlike those found on other modern mammals. It has fingernails instead of claws. And by examining the structure of its hind legs (one of which is partly missing), scientists say they can see evidence of evolutionary changes that would eventually lead to primates standing upright.

Is Darwinius Masillae (Ida) Really the Missing Fossil Link for Darwinian Evolution?

LOL, what a joke. That is like saying because poodle’s have “hair” instead of “fur” they must be a direct link to human ancestors. Or since that cheese sandwich with Mother Mary on it that sold for thousands on eBay a few years back resembles Mary, it must have evolved from her too. Or since Ostriches walk upright, they too are a common ancestor of us. Give me a break people. Why do so many people get scammed by these non-sense claims & accept them as fact?

Common designs or patterns found among different species DOES NOT IMPLY evolution…DUH! If we use that twisted logic with anything in the real world, we can quickly see how it is dis-proven with ease. Many things (living and non-living) share common traits, patterns, and designs, however, we know they didn’t evolve from each other. Lighting has the same branching pattern as the veins in trees or our own body…Gee, we must have evolved from lightning too.

Not only that, but they somehow “know” that it is 47 million years old. I really wish I knew these people so I could borrow their time machine for a while. It would be nice to go back in time & invest in Microsoft & Google stock. I wonder why they don’t do that?

All kidding aside, these dating methods are a joke, and this whole thing is an assumption built on top of an assumption, built on top of another assumption, with a house of cards as the shaky foundation. Most dating methods are only accurate for a few thousand years, and even then they can be contradictory. They have no idea how old something is unless they themselves were actually there. Dating methods are flawed, and only used under the assumption that something in the universe hasn’t happened within that time which could affect the dating.

Most people simply can’t understand the concept of assumptions. They are blinded to think that any evidence or assumptions=truth. It doesn’t, not by a long shot. There are tons of things in life with no evidence, or very little evidence, yet are true. There are others with a ton of evidence to say one thing, but in fact the opposite is true.

No one on Earth right now, and I do mean NO ONE, knows what happened at the beginning, and how we got here. It is all faith based. You can put your faith in a mysterious big bang that “just happened”, or you can put your faith in a God causing the “big bang”. We will never be able to definitively know how it all started, or how it happened unless we jumped in a time machine, and that isn’t going to happen…EVER.

Many evolutionists are already jumping right onto the bandwagon and automatically assuming the few scientists that have had a chance to view this are correct, and this indeed is a “missing link”. I am quite frankly shocked that they still have not learned their lessons with this whole “missing link” claim non-sense.

All of the other “missing link” claims they have made in the past (such as “Piltdown man, Lucy, etc.) have already been proven to be either completely human, or completely monkey, or completely non-sense. In other words, they weren’t missing links at all like they were first announced! I would think they would have learned their lessons, but apparently not. It seems that scientists are so eager to label something as a missing link these days.

I personally can’t wait until this fossil gets categorized appropriately into the category it should be in (which should happen as soon as it has been objectionably viewed by ALL scientists). The whole thing will probably soon be labeled a hoax or error just like all of the other “missing link” claims in the past once someone with a clear mind views it. Oh well, I suppose history does have a way of repeating itself.

The funny part is that the fossil itself has already been discovered some 20 years ago, and apparently has just been disregarded as nothing significant, that is, until recently. My guess is that they are getting extraordinarily desperate & are looking for anything to label “Missing Link.” The track record for falsely labeling these fossils as missing links certainly has destroyed my confidence in any claims they make.

One article I read made a great point that the whole thing is a big publicity stunt, basically to sell their propaganda trash and to make money (There is a documentary that just magically happens to be coming out right now, along with other documentaries coming soon, and a book publishing…how convenient & perfect timing don’t you think). Seriously, if you don’t think they are going to profit off of this non-sense, you are kidding yourself. There is money to be made behind the whole charade. It is nothing more than smoke & mirrors labeled as science in an attempt at glory & money.

This is also probably an attempt to gain more “grant” money for continued “research’ (or as I like to say “fairy tale creating” by lazy scientists with big imaginations & tremendous faith). Seriously, some of these scientists have brilliant imaginations. I can’t help but feel like most have missed their calling. They should definitely be writing fiction works right now. It would be much more compelling in my opinion, don’t you think?

Why Do Seemingly Intelligent Scientists Want to Be Monkeys So Badly?

I really truly laugh at these evolutionists. They have more faith than any religious person I know in their “hairy” agendas. Seriously, they have more faith in evolution than most people have in God who are labeled as “religious fundamentalists (fundies)”. That is sad.

I have never seen so many intelligent people, be so incredibly ignorant, but I guess that is just how it is sometimes. Have you ever personally known someone who was brilliant at one thing in their life, but completely ignorant at another thing? I sure have! In fact I would suggest that we are all highly intelligent at one thing, but completely ignorant at another. I have known people that were brilliant at mechanical engineering, but can’t manage their finances or do their taxes to save their life.

I have known people who are incredible at sports, but can barely read. I have known people who can’t do a math problem to save their life, but can out-perform anyone in a school subject such as literature or writing.

And here we have seemingly reasonable scientists who just so happen to think they are monkeys (or at least a monkey’s uncle). If evolutionists/atheists want to be monkeys so badly, why on Earth do they not just strip off their clothes, get a banana, and hop around in the trees all day out in Africa or the rain forest? Seriously, go be monkeys if you want it that badly folks.

Or perhaps we could put them in a cage at the zoo, and then set up a really neat display with them typing on computers & stuff. That would be really cool. Maybe they can even throw their poo at people just like the “real monkeys” do!

As for me, I think God created me. If man can create a species in a lab without it having to evolve over hundreds of years (under the influences of natural selection, etc.), why couldn’t God? I believe I am something better than a monkey, and if man can intelligently design a species in its final form, so can God. You may wish to believe you are a monkey’s uncle, but not me.

I believe God created us separately. We may share a similar design, but that is only because we had a common designer. No friends, God made us special. He created us in His image. He gave us power & dominion & intelligence above all “beasts.” That is not something to take lightly.

Sponsored Links

Posted under evolution, science